 |
|
Cost-effective Primary Care–Based Strategies to Improve Smoking CessationMore Value for Money
Hans Joachim Salize, PhD;
Silke Merkel, Dipl-Rom;
Iris Reinhard, Dipl-Math;
Dorothee Twardella, PhD;
Karl Mann, MD;
Hermann Brenner, MD, MPH
Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(3):230-235.
Background Evidence from cost-effective smoking cessation programs is scarce. This study determined the cost-effectiveness of 3 smoking cessation strategies as provided by general practitioners (GPs) in Germany.
Methods In a cluster-randomized smoking cessation trial, rates and intervention costs for 577 smoking patients of 82 GPs were followed up for 12 months. Three smoking cessation treatments were tested: (1) GP training plus GP remuneration for each abstinent patient, (2) GP training plus cost-free nicotine replacement medication and/or bupropion hydrochloride for the patient, and (3) a combination of both strategies. Smoking abstinence at 12 months was the primary outcome used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and net monetary benefits.
Results Intervention 1 was not effective compared with treatment as usual (TAU). Interventions 2 and 3 each proved to be cost-effective compared separately with TAU. When applying a 95% level of certainty of cost-effectiveness against TAU,  9.80 or 6.96, respectively, had to be paid for each additional 1% of patients abstinent at 12 months (maximum willingness to pay). That means that in intervention 2, 92.12 per patient in the program must be invested to gain 1 additional quitter (as opposed to 39.10 paid per patient during the trial). In intervention 2, the cost was 82.82, as opposed to 50.04. Neither of these 2 cost-effective treatments proved to be superior to the other. The cost-effectiveness of both treatments was stable against TAU in sensitivity analyses. (The exchange rate from October 1, 2003, was used; 1 = $1.17.)
Conclusions Both treatments have a high potential to reduce smoking-related morbidity at a low cost. It is highly recommended that they be implemented as a routine service offered by GPs because in many countries, health insurance plans currently do not fund nicotine replacement therapy.
Author Affiliations: Central Institute of Mental Health, Mannheim, Germany (Drs Salize and Mann and Mss Merkel and Reinhard); Bavarian Health and Food Safety Authority, Oberschleissheim, Germany (Dr Twardella); and German Centre for Research on Ageing and German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany (Dr Brenner).
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLE
Cost-effective Primary Care–Based Strategies to Improve Smoking Cessation—Invited Commentary
Patrick G. O’Malley
Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(3):235-236.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Use of Pharmacotherapy for Smoking Cessation in Italy
Arch Intern Med 2009;169:1927-1928.
FULL TEXT
|
